kameraflage enables your digicam to see more than you

While we've already seen what tricks cameras can play right before our very eyes, kameraflage is a slightly different flavor of optical illusion. The patent-pending technology exploits the fact that cameras can see a broader spectrum of colors than our meager eyes, and as the creator puts it, "by rendering content in these invisible colors we are able to create displays that are invisible to the naked eye, yet can be seen when imaged with a digital camera." Currently, it's being applied to garments in able to for cameraphone addicts to find surprises all over while pointing their sensors at unsuspecting humans, and the tech will even be on display at the upcoming 2007 ACM SIGGRAPH Unravel fashion show in San Diego. Best of all, custom orders will be fielded as early as September, and if we've got any interested VCs in the crowd, give this man a holler.

[Via c0nn0r]

[safaria @ Jul 27th 2007 9:09AM]

i thought it was love juice on her.

[Bada Shahdank @ Jul 27th 2007 1:36PM]

She's only about 10...you're a sick puppy.

[Bilgin Ozkan @ Jul 27th 2007 9:17AM]

i don't get it. no, really.

[Jon Graft @ Jul 27th 2007 10:52AM]

You're not the only one that doesn't get it. So pretty much all it does is supps up your camera to take prettier looking pictures??

[chadow @ Jul 27th 2007 9:18AM]

Thats funny...on the website for this company they point out how you can see subtitles during movies using your camera. Film 'pirates' across the country will just bring cameras into the theaters and tell security "I'm just trying to read the hidden subtitles".

[Lor @ Jul 30th 2007 3:23PM]

a better idea would be to have a giant watermark on the screen so people wont be able to record it in the theater. no need to check for cameras!

[NHAnimator @ Jul 27th 2007 9:20AM]

"Currently, it's being applied to garments in able to for cameraphone addicts to find surprises all over while pointing their sensors at unsuspecting humans"

1. That's not written in English.

2. This screams 'perv'.

[jilie @ Jul 27th 2007 9:26AM]

Crap way from Engadget to advertize again the IFlop

[Matt @ Jul 27th 2007 9:48AM]

How is the iPhone a flop? No really, I'd like you to quantify that.

Disclaimer: I am NOT an apple fanboy, I own no apple products (well okay, an original mini that sometimes finds use).

[Rees Clissold @ Jul 27th 2007 10:01AM]

OMG! An iPhone! Quick, to the comment box to express my outrage!

... I'm thinking of three words. First one is "get" and the last one is "life".

[edward @ Jul 27th 2007 9:27AM]

one thing the camera does not see is that she desperately needs to eat a sandwich or something

[Neil Edwards @ Jul 27th 2007 9:32AM]

If that's the case then why can you only see it on the picture from the cameraphone and not the other camera??

[Jonhimslf @ Jul 27th 2007 9:39AM]

haha good observation. I wouldn't be surprised if they edited it out to demonstrate the product

[Cory @ Jul 27th 2007 9:58AM]

Did you perhaps consider a film camera? Or have those become forgotten relics?

[Grant @ Jul 27th 2007 1:08PM]

film cameras can do the same thing, especially when the IR filter is removed.

[t-bone @ Jul 27th 2007 6:34PM]

@Grant: Film cameras don't have IR filters built-in like digital cameras. The film naturally doesn't respond to IR unless you buy specific film and use a special filter.

[icepop4who @ Jul 27th 2007 9:38AM]

this is advancement for the camera-shy. make this thing into a spray and spray it all over your face. You'll never be caught stupid on camera again!

[erhan @ Aug 3rd 2007 1:19AM]

But Then everyone would think there is a love stain on her face.
Paris, get a hold of this.
Haahahahaha lol

[Rasbach @ Jul 27th 2007 9:55AM]

Wow she is anorexic! Maybe her huge nose makes her look smaller.

[Neil Edwards @ Jul 27th 2007 10:06AM]

It does initially say 'cameras' see a wider spectrum then us, not just digital cameras, I thought they were pushing the digicam thing just for the instant results...

[roc ingersol @ Jul 27th 2007 10:04AM]

I can't wait until the t-shirt equivalents of rude 'no hotlinking' images show up.

in daylight it's a harmless t - under a CCD it's: 'fuck you, photog!'
or for the ladies: 'don't put my tits in your spank-bank, perv'

[Rasbach @ Jul 27th 2007 10:13AM]

Man, I can't remember the last time I heard the term "hotlink." Perhaps it was in the same era as "hypercards."

[Jeff @ Jul 27th 2007 10:09AM]

My use for this product (if there is even a use for it).

Just wear a nice regular black t-shirt to parties...or so your fellow partiers think until they get home and check out their pictures and BOOM:

"wait...i don't remember seeing that guy wearing the shirt that said C**K MUNCHER in massive letters....how weird....think i'd notice that"

[SpeZek @ Jul 27th 2007 11:52AM]

Why would you wear a t-shirt that declares YOU a "C*CK MUNCHER"?

In fact, why would it be censored as well, if camera-less people could not see it?

[Jeff @ Jul 27th 2007 10:13AM]

@roc ingersol

Actually thats a pretty decent idea. Like a real life watermark almost. I mean you could slap it all over the mona-lisa and you wouldn't even have to have "no photography" signs up. It'd just have a big watermark all over the finished image :P

Also. If this DOES work with projected film. Just plaster copyright marks all over a movie with this stuff. No more CAM movies ¬_¬

[Grimnir @ Jul 27th 2007 12:08PM]

Guys... the lens can pick up ranges in the spectrum that our eyes can't see... the software most likely identifies these portions of the image and converts them into a part of the spectrum we can see... The camera taking a picture of ultraviolet doesn't mean we can suddenly see it... think night vision cameras. The information is already there, they just adapt it to something our eyes can utilize.

[roc ingersol @ Jul 27th 2007 12:04PM]

Easiest way to make it work with film is to put the IR-reflective watermark on the screen itself. If the projector bulbs don't kick out a broad-enough spectrum of light (if it's not projecting any IR to reflect), they may need to add an IR projector as well. But that wouldn't be a big deal.

But you can get 'good enough' IR-filtering plastic pretty cheap (like, $10-a-sheet-cheap), and the better digital cameras are already building in an IR-filtering layer (IR-sensitivity mucks up quality luminance capture).

[roc ingersol @ Jul 27th 2007 1:15PM]

Grimnir:

IR light mucks with the visible color values that CCDs calculate. Every single picture taken with a CCD in IR light suffers this way. There's no custom software or custom camera filter needed (as with UV cameras).

Most people just don't notice unless they're photographing a target that specifically reflects or emits IR, which exaggerates the effect.
(E.g. the IR reflective material in this shirt, or an IR emitting remote control, or IR motion detection widget, etc)

[Je2037 @ Jul 27th 2007 10:14AM]

So wait, a broader spectrum of colors? What is the magical color we can't see and how can when see it when its on a digital photo?

[Andrew E. @ Jul 27th 2007 11:15AM]

Infrared light. Point a tv remote at your webcam and you'll see what I mean. We see only a very tiny fraction the the light spectrum.

[slug @ Jul 27th 2007 10:16AM]

anyone ever put a camera to a remote? the IR thing at the end lights up through a camera, but u cant see it normally. pretty funky eh?

[Rasbach @ Jul 27th 2007 10:21AM]

I was going to post this same exact thing- in fact, I was having fun with the kids one day and showing them the flashes of light that come from the wii controllers.

[Darwin @ Jul 27th 2007 10:43AM]

Pretty old-tech spun with business in mind. Doesn't everyone already know that all this is is the good old remove-IR-filter+increase sensitivity trick?

[bones @ Jul 27th 2007 11:44AM]

"in able to for". Must...correct...grammar...

[Stephen Lang @ Jul 27th 2007 12:09PM]

The Leica M8 already has this 'feature'. It turns out that most black garments are actually purple...

[johnzilla @ Jul 27th 2007 12:14PM]

This is a really weak idea. Here's a better implementation that would make someone a lot of money. You heard it here first.

Create a line of "club" clothes that have infrared-visible threads in various patterns. Call it "Infrathreads". Flowers, messages ("I want sex", "I'm looking for a Japanese girlfriend"), logos, designs, whatever, designed into the sleeves, backs, fronts, cuffs, everywhere. In normal light, you can't see anything unusual. Sell infrared lights to clubs and DJs. Offer cheap (free) 3D-like glasses to everyone who comes through the door. Better yet, design the thread so that it glows in a visible spectrum when hit with infrared light. Like ultraviolet, but without the weird purple stripclub/1960s stoner vibe.

[Phoenix Enigma @ Jul 28th 2007 1:33AM]

Neat idea, altho basic physics says it won't work. You can't turn a low energy (ie. long wavelength ie infrared) photon into a higher energy, shorter wavelength visible photon without somehow adding energy, and you can't do that with a passive system. That's why going from UV to violet (loosing energy) works, but IR to, say, red, won't.

On the other hand, you could just issue everyone mil-spec night vision goggles. That'd be a funky looking club! :P

[sammy baby @ Jul 27th 2007 12:59PM]

I desperately want a tee shirt that looks plain black when viewed with the naked eye, but says "STOP BLOGGING ME" when snapped with a cameraphone.

[Dave @ Jul 27th 2007 2:08PM]

This is why it is possible to photograph ghosts and spirits.

[Jeff @ Jul 27th 2007 4:54PM]

I lol in your general direction.

[t-bone @ Jul 27th 2007 6:35PM]

I noticed the website didn't seem to have any actual photographs using this technology. They were all "mockups".

[smallcaps @ Jul 27th 2007 8:23PM]

this would be wicked with QRcode.

[TonyaRashcan @ Jul 28th 2007 2:15AM]

So soon we can expect all of the paparazzi to be pissed as they find that all of their pictures have statements like "Pararazzi are as*holes" in them. Good! I am, like, so tired of them following me around.

[Jase @ Jul 30th 2007 1:21PM]

would be nice to use against those pesky speeding cams.

[dawuss @ Aug 15th 2007 5:16AM]

Hmm, maybe we could get copyright notices tattooed in case we ever get photographed naked :P